What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Excerpt from the Bob Carter paper cited above:

"In addition to the fact that the earth is now cooling, the specific hypothesis that dangerous
global warming will be caused by human carbon dioxide emissions has itself been thoroughly
explored and tested over the last 20 years. The hypothesis has failed all tests to which it has
been subjected, and despite great research effort and financial expenditure no convincing
or strong countermanding evidence has emerged that suggests it to be true. Little that is
predicted by the dangerous, human-caused global warming hypothesis has yet been observed
in empirical data."

Jimbo

[Frosty]

Beside the bad weather in America the Bangkok post reported today that Hua Hin , a small beach resort 300Km south of bangkok has been declared a disaster area as the temperature last night fell to 10 degrees.

Some houses without electricity I suppose were totally taken by surprise at this previously unkown temp.

[Boston]

wrong again Jim

If your alleged loop exists then why isn't the climate running away right now?

are you kidding me
they have been defined right and left
for god sakes man you are embarrassing yourself
clearly your comprehension of the terminology of climate change is seriously wanting
as is your basic understanding of what a feedback loop is
I urge you once again to not just read from the industry rags, but actually try and understand what a feedback loop is
as it seems to really be escaping you

it is really bad form to speak about things you clearly have limited knowledge of
allow me to correct you again
both with the definition of a feedback loop
and an example of its existence from the literature

from the NSIDC
( National Snow and Ice Data Center )
definition

feedback
Any change in the environment leading to additional and enhanced changes in that system is the result of a positive feedback mechanism.
( this was later amended to include negative systems as well )

feedback loop
In the climate system a "feedback loop" refers to a pattern of interacting processes where a change in one variable, through interaction with other variables in the system, either reinforces the original process (positive feedback) or suppresses the process (negative feedback).

they are nearly identical and both are used interchangeably
I can site countless articles were there use is in the same context

not only did you get that completely wrong but you then went on to state in one of your most recent

Try to remember that the term 'feedback' IS NOT synoymous with the term 'feedback loop', then go back and read any text I've posted here with that new understanding about the distinction between these terms, and you will see there's no contradiction AT ALL. Feedback can be positive or negative, but only a positive feedback can form a loop

something else loopy round here is you brother
but believe me I did get a great laugh out of it
now would you like to go tell the National Snow and Ice Data Center they have there terminology wrong and will have to fall in line with another famous Jimism
and that last bit was almost as good as an "unstable equilibrium"
"only a positive feedback can form a loop" ?
where did you dream that up
feel free to site the dictionary you got that from

if you then go to
http://books.google.com/books?id=vyE...m=10&ct=result
and actually read pg 63 you may have a moment of enlightenment
maybe
ok slim chance but I tend to be an optimist

both feedback and feedback loops exist and are regularly sited in the literature
it is contradictory to state in one breath that feedback loops do not exist and have been proven so
and in another to try and ramble on about negative feedback being some kind of savior disemboweling the hole global climate change theory

looks like you have a touch of hoof and mouth
just type in something funny and Im sure someone will give you a hand
good luck with that, friend
your going to need it
B

check and mate
time for a bear

[Boston]

its one thing to make a slip and admit it
its another to blither on for several pages trying to BS your way out of it
while busily digging yourself a deeper hole

sorry but your not worming out of this one so easily
you could have just let the storm pass and admit nothing like usual
but two pages later I dont think anyone is fooled
you screwed up and wont admit it

thats, game, set
and match

now shall we discuss what a consensus is
how about something in the vicinity of 97%
would that be a consensus

oh and I was reading Bob Carters stuff
you sure make this easy Jim

regards
B

[bntii]

Does anyone feel it is possible that the atmosphere could hold more water at higher temperatures?

[bntii]

Has anyone looked into how variations in solar energy reaching the earth effect climate?

That is, if there is a increase in radiant energy, is the effect on climate linear?

Is there any observed "feedback" which amplifies the increase?

[bntii]

Questions:

On our planet.

1) Would the planet be warmer or colder if there was no water present?

2) Would the planet be warmer or colder if there was no Co2 present?

3) How much solar energy is striking the planet in w/m^2

[Guillermo]

Thomas,
have you read my post 1599?

[bntii]

Will check - hold on a sec....

Ok- yes.. I had posted a paper a bit back which seemed to quantify this & I believe the whole issue remains as one of the topics we have not explored to full depth.

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

Hotter air will indeed hold more water. On the solar radiation question, this is a very hot topic in climate science right now, and not simple at all. The sun throws out a lot of different types of radiation, and they interact with the earth in different ways. The different types of radiation vary quite a lot in cycles.

In your hypothetical case questions, when you say 'no water present', this means no ocean, completely water free? CO2 is a small part of the greenhouse budget and pretty effective the first 100 ppm, but I expect removing it entirely would cool down the atmosphere. But without water vapor, you are subtracting 96% of the greenhouse effect. That will have a profound impact. The place would go into a deep freeze, I expect. Except with no water to freeze.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

A small FACT excerpted from the Monckton paper, cited several times in this thread:

"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted."

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by rasorinc

Our poles are slowly reversing their magnetic points. I do not save data like you folks do on global warming so I have no long posts. It can be measured
now and it seems to be a quiet secret. The effects will make global warming but a piece of sand on a beach. I will hope that others here who are smarter than I will look into this. What little I have read, heard and seen scares me far more than the causes of global warming as we seem to have no idea why this is happening. Would love to hear from those who can assist in helping
others to understand this happening. Thank you very much, Stan Rasor

Hi rasorinc!
Good post! There is a connection to boating: "Ship logs and pottery show how the geomagnetic field has changed."

An interesting media discussion on the matter here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr..._magnetic.html

And a animation on magnetic field reversal based on the Glatzmaier-Roberts model here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/reversals.html

From there:
"The strength of our world's magnetic field has been diminishing for the past 300 years. If the Glatzmaier-Roberts model accurately simulates the processes that drive the magnetic field, the loss of strength could be an indication that a reversal is under way. This would be no surprise. On average, reversals of the Earth's magnetic field happen every 250,000 years. It's now been about 720,000 years since our last reversal. Judging from history, we know that a reversal is long overdue. But there's no need to throw away your old compasses. A reversal usually takes hundreds or thousands of years to complete."

Another interesting site, with lots of info, here:
http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/dmglist.htm

Cheers.

[rasorinc]

Guillermo, Thank you very much for your reply and information, I greatly
appreciate your effort and I shall read the posts over and over.
Thanks much, Stan

[Guillermo]

Here a partial list of the crazy and most dangerous geo-engineering proposals GW alarmism is producing:

- spraying sulfate particles into Earth's stratosphere
- produce white clouds over the ocean
- pump CO2 into rocks or deep sea
- series of giant mirrors in space
- billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons in the stratosphere
- growing algae/phytoplankton in the sea to absorb carbon dioxide
- floating giant white foam frisbees to reflect sunlight
- depositing giant ice cubes in the middle of the ocean
- dump quicklime into the oceans to sequester more carbon in their depths
- building Pykrete sheets (structure/ships) to reflect the sunlight
- decrease efficiency of burning in engines of aircraft flying in the low stratosphere to maintain a thin cloud of soot to intercept sunlight
- burn sulfur in ships or power plants to form sulfate aerosol in order to stimulate additional low marine clouds to reflect sunlight
- using nuclear bombs to create a nuclear winter
- mining moon dust to create a shielding cloud
- reflective plastic sheets covering 67,000 square miles of desert
- chemically removing hydrochloric acid from the ocean by electrolysis
- placing large vertical pipes in the oceans to bring nutrient rich water to the surface
- burying biomass directly, thus sequestering the carbon in the ground
............

My God....!

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Here a partial list of the crazy and most dangerous geo-engineering proposals GW alarmism is producing:


My God....!

You forgot one..

- releasing 160 billion tons of Co2 directly into the atmosphere


NO WAIT-

That actually has no effect at all.....

rolls eyes...!